Illinois Compiled Statutes

410 ILCS 305/10 (2026)

No person to whom the results of a test have been disclosed may disclose the test results to another person except as authorized under this Act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(410 ILCS 305/10) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 7310)
    Sec. 10. No person to whom the results of a test have been disclosed may disclose the test results to another person except as authorized under this Act.
(Source: P.A. 98-1046, eff. 1-1-15.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2002–2006 · leading case: Doe v. Chand, 781 N.E.2d 340 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
Doe v. Chand, 781 N.E.2d 340 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “410 ILCS 305/10 (West 1998). Section 6 requires that written informed consent be provided by using a coded system which does not link the identity of the individual with the test result.”
Glasco v. Marony, 808 N.E.2d 1107 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “" 410 ILCS 305/10 (West 2000). The plaintiff constructively admitted that she changed the negative test results of her test to reflect positive test results and that she or her husband mailed the altered HIV test results to Dr.”
Doe v. Dilling, 861 N.E.2d 1052 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “The Council further cites to the provision of the Confidentiality Act prohibiting redisclosure of the results of an HIV test (410 ILCS 305/10 ( West 1996 ) (“No person to whom the results of a test have been disclosed may disclose the test results to another person except as…”
Doe v. Chand Corrected Opinion (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “410 ILCS 305/10 (West 1998). Section 6 requires that written informed consent be provided by using a coded system which does not link the identity of the individual with the test result.”
Doe v. Dilling (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “The Council further cites to the provision of the Confidentiality Act prohibiting redisclosure of the results of an HIV test (410 ILCS 305/10 ( West 1996 ) ("No person to whom the results of a test 13 As defendants point out, Doe's situation was very different from that of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.